"The latest design includes not one but two vehicles: the Kliper reentry glider itself and the Parom (ferry) orbital tug -- a new element of the system, which would be launched by a separate rocket. Splitting the spacecraft into two independent segments would enable their launches onboard a modified version of the Soyuz rocket, which has been a workhorse of the Russian manned spaceflight for decades. The launch vehicle, designated as Soyuz-2-3, would become a culmination of incremental upgrades currently planned for the Soyuz-2 family of rockets. Previously, RKK Energia considered launching Kliper onboard of a heavily modified Soyuz-3 rocket, existing Zenit-2 launcher or yet-to-be-built Angara rocket.

As added bonus, the use of the Soyuz-2-3 rocket would allow launching the Kliper from European Space Agency's facility in French Guiana, offering extra payload capabilities due to its geographical location.

The unmanned Parom orbital tug, carrying propulsion system for orbital manuevering and additional habitation volume, could be launched first, awaiting the manned Kliper in orbit. Upon the Kliper launch, the two vehicles would dock, with the Parom providing all orbital manuevering, attitude control and docking needed to reach the space station or higher orbits. At the conclusion of the flight, the Kliper, carrying the crew, would reenter the atmosphere and glide to Earth, while the Parom, with enough propellant onboard, would be parked in orbit, awaiting next manned mission".

So yeah, this is the third significant re-shaping of the vehicle since it was unveiled in Feb 04.

I wonder how much the Russians are counting on getting funding from ESA in order to develop the Klipper? The latest is the ESA is facing budget issues and isn't going to contribute a single Euro although Japan still seems to be taking an interest.

Can't say I like the stat's on the Klipper much. Although partially reusable, their current setup seems to be better value although they seem to be pushing the idea that the Klipper can be used for a variety of missions like the NASA Apollo2 effort. Bad move I think as you end up compromising too much and get an inferior product that doesn't do anything well.

I don't think the Chinese will make that mistake. They will fund up to get what they need without compromise, unlike the Russians and NASA.

Although ESA head Jean-Jacques Dordain said last summer that the ESA Council at ministerial level had not decided to participate directly in the Clipper project, it had agreed to allocate 300 million euros over the next three years to the development of advanced technologies for new transport spacecraft. The most likely recipient is thought to be the Clipper.

I'm confused does this mean ESA will partially fund Kliper or not?

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Taking the quoted issue as it is Ithink ESA will be funding Kliper indirectly.

They will fund the development of new technologies for new transport spacecraft regardless of what new transport spacecraft this will be. Those new technologies wil be applicable to several new spacecrafts. So ESA may licence out the new technologies to the Russians too and the Russians can use them for Kliper without having to do their own development efforst and expenses.

ESA Will have nothing against that, get a retrun on the investments into development this way, get an alternative to the Space Shuttle an indriect way - the only way open to them fthe next three years - and don't invest particularly or solely into the Kliper.

I seem to remeber that I read an article saying something like that under www.marssociety.de since 10th of December but don't know this moment what its title was and when it has been published.

Rumor has it that Zenit looks to be Kliper's ride. Putting a hydrogen upper stage on R-7 will cost some money--and will only increase its capability to what Zenit could carry without a hydrolox upper stage. But that is a Ukrainian rocket--so some bridges have to be rebuilt.

Hard to think of R-7 as a small rocket when it dwarfs the original Titans, Atlas, etc. But one Zenit has about the same thrust as the five booster R-7.

Even the Atlas V (with its half strength RD-180, derived from Zenit's RD-170) has almost twice the thrust than the Atlas IIAS including its solid rocket boosters .

Rumor has it that Zenit looks to be Kliper's ride. Putting a hydrogen upper stage on R-7 will cost some money--and will only increase its capability to what Zenit could carry without a hydrolox upper stage. But that is a Ukrainian rocket--so some bridges have to be rebuilt.

Hard to think of R-7 as a small rocket when it dwarfs the original Titans, Atlas, etc. But one Zenit has about the same thrust as the five booster R-7.

Even the Atlas V (with its half strength RD-180, derived from Zenit's RD-170) has almost twice the thrust than the Atlas IIAS including its solid rocket boosters .

Why not use this as an excuse to bring in the Europeans? Possibly use Ariane V? Or is Ariane V way more expensive than Zenit?

The big problem is the uglyness between Russia and Ukraine. Zenit is a in reality Ukrainian rocket--not a Russian rocket. Angara is to be an all-Russian rocket, like R-7. I don't know about Ukrainian relations with Europe--but they may warm.

The Zenit is produced Ukraine at Yuzhnoye/Yuzmash IIRC. Zenit is already launched off the Sea Launch Oil derric--but it has no capability to launch Kliper that I know of. Zenit uses the RD-170. The Atlas V uses the half-strength RD-180 two nozzle version of the -170's four nozzle.

The recent New Horizons Atlas V with solids had about even thrust with a four nozzle RD-170 Zenit Sea Launch vehicle without solids.

An Atlas five with a single two nozzle RD-180 and no solids has almost twice the thrust of the old Atlas IIAS with solids.

Zenit can loft about 13 tons to LEO. Proton can put 20 tons up there with six medium sized RD-253 engines. Zenit only has the one F-1 class RD-170.

The big problem is the uglyness between Russia and Ukraine. Zenit is a in reality Ukrainian rocket--not a Russian rocket. Angara is to be an all-Russian rocket, like R-7. I don't know about Ukrainian relations with Europe--but they may warm.

Espcially after the love felt over the recent oil shut down. But my point is, its Russia that is building Kliper, so their the ones who need the rocket. So why don't they approach Europe - admitadly relations with Europe aren't great either, but given their was serious talk about trying to boot the Russians from the one seaport in Ukraine, I have to imagine the feels are considerably warmer between Russia and Europe than Russia and Ukraine.

So, why not approach the Europeans? Or, I'll go one suggestion further - why not try and make it such that it's not dependent upon a single rocket? Or isn't that even concievable at this time?

Why not use this as an excuse to bring in the Europeans? Possibly use Ariane V? Or is Ariane V way more expensive than Zenit?

I think the Russians are ulikely to use Ariane V for the same reasons that the US wont use it for CEV, they do not wish to rely on a foreign launch vehicle. Now you could argue that Zenit is a foreign booster but they have a lot of history with the Ukraine (I know not all good) and there is always a tendency to go with the devil you know.

I also think that 4 decades of cold war between the US and Russia have left behind a lot of mistrust on both sides which makes it harder for the Russians to commit to ESA who have always worked closely with the US. I get the impression that while Russia doesn't mind ESA funding Kliper they wouldn't be to keen on the idea of them controlling the launches from Kourou.

Remember that it is only relatively recently that the Russians have been on such good terms with ESA, politics is a fickle medium and that could change if the Russians start to rachet up the cost of all that gas they are proposing to pipe to Europe.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I think the Russians are ulikely to use Ariane V for the same reasons that the US wont use it for CEV, they do not wish to rely on a foreign launch vehicle. Now you could argue that Zenit is a foreign booster but they have a lot of history with the Ukraine (I know not all good) and there is always a tendency to go with the devil you know.

I also think that 4 decades of cold war between the US and Russia have left behind a lot of mistrust on both sides which makes it harder for the Russians to commit to ESA who have always worked closely with the US. I get the impression that while Russia doesn't mind ESA funding Kliper they wouldn't be to keen on the idea of them controlling the launches from Kourou.

Remember that it is only relatively recently that the Russians have been on such good terms with ESA, politics is a fickle medium and that could change if the Russians start to rachet up the cost of all that gas they are proposing to pipe to Europe.

Well, as far as US using Kliper, your right, even though I think that is something we should consider. But, as far as the Europeans go, there is quite a bit of history of various members of Europe working with Russia/Soviet Union. And further, there was serious talk, at least I got the impression, that if Europe helped to fund Kliper, they'd be allowed to launch it as well from Korouro

For a long while--I doubted whether Kliper was a legitimate project--or just an excuse to fool Europe into paying for hydrogen upper stage handling facilities in Kourou--adding Centaur type ability to the R-7 pad already being built there.

This would almost double R-7--pushing it past Ariane 4 and into Zenit class--eating into low-end Ariane 5 payloads.

I think the Europeans feared that they were paying for an Ariane killer--and balked at providing Russia with such hydrogen handling capabilities.

This would force greater cooperation with Ukraine. Onega would launch 13 tons into LEO--but from Kourou. Zenit about the same--but launched in a higher inclination--which is good for ISS orbits anyway.

There is still a part of me that still wonders if Kliper was just a way to get Europe to pay for Onega and extend the R-7's dominance upon the world's launch market.